Methods

Column {width = 100}

Intro

Column {width = 300}

Statistical Methods

Introduction

A study was conducted measuring the different physical and cognitive effects of a new Dual Task exercise method in elderly participants. There were three treatment groups monitored, the Dual Task group, a standard exercise group referred to as Exercise Only, and a Control group. The goal of this study was to measure whether or not the Dual Task exercise plan had a significantly different cognitive and physical characteristics when compared to standard exercise. The study hopes to find whether the Dual Task group is more effective than standard exercise in this regard, in hopes it can help combat health decline and dementia in the elderly. In each of the three treatment groups, participants were measured at four separate time intervals, of which the first point was discarded due to incomplete data and the remaining points were divided into a baseline, six weeks out, and twelve weeks out. At each of these points, multiple variables of interest regarding cognition and physicality were measured.

Methods

Repeated Measures ANOVA

In order to investigate the effects of this new Dual Task method, we performed a 1-way repeated measures ANOVA test with a blocking factor of time to measure whether a difference in the variable of interest resulted in a group of interest at different time comparisons. The repeated measures ANOVA inherently accounts for variation in individual subjects, allowing us to The ANOVA was conducted at a confidence level of .05 and considered both the effects of group and time. The time comparisons were the baseline to six weeks, and six weeks to twelve weeks. The results of this ANOVA would decide whether there was a significant difference in the measured change in means of the variables of interest.

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean scores of the variables of interest between the three groups at all of timepoints.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is at least one difference in the mean scores of the variables of interest between the three groups at all of timepoints.

Paired T-Test

After the ANOVA results were obtained, pairwise t-tests were conducted at a .05 confidence level between all treatments and time comparisons of interest. The pairwise t-tests were used on all variables of interest, but will only be applicable in response variables that had significant ANOVA F tests. These pairwise t-tests were done to verify which group and time comparisons significantly differed from the others. This post-hoc analysis is integral to utilizing the ANOVA method.

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the scores of the variables of interest between the given two time points and the given group.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the scores of the variables of interest between the given two time points and the given group.

Once these tests were run, the results were compiled into this flex-dashboard and analyzed to identify when treatments significantly differed. This was used to discern when the Dual Task exercise method resulted in a significant difference from the other two methods, which allowed us to make statistical conclusions regarding the effects of the treatment on the variables of interest. This analysis served to determine the efficacy of the Dual Task treatment as a whole.

Percent Fat

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.2105032
Anova P-Value 0.8113250

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Percent fat between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -0.7909 1.7869 11 0.1728
Dual W6 - W12 -0.1182 1.7645 11 0.8287
Excersise Only B2 - W6 0.0071 3.4285 15 0.0474
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -2.5000 6.0143 15 0.2680
Control B2 - W6 -0.4857 2.0136 10 0.8241
Control W6 - W12 -0.3000 1.1605 10 0.6132

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graph, there appears to be little change in percent fat over time, save for one member of the exercise only group. This one individual appears to be an outlier, as there is no consistent pattern within any of the groups.

  • ANOVA: According to the Anova test, the results are non-significant. With such a low F-Stat and a high P-value, the results of the pairwise t-test can be ignored. Percent-fat does not appear to vary significantly across groups over time.

Systolic Blood Pressure

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.6349538
Anova P-Value 0.5367123

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Systolic Blood Pressure between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -13.0000 15.8051 11 0.0213
Dual W6 - W12 6.8182 13.9055 11 0.1350
Excersise Only B2 - W6 2.7929 32.0888 15 0.6896
Excersise Only W6 - W12 4.1071 11.2424 15 0.0921
Control B2 - W6 0.7143 13.6347 10 0.3987
Control W6 - W12 1.8000 15.3101 10 0.0408

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing all graphs, there appears to be vary little change in systolic blood pressure in any group across time. One outlier exists with a systolic blood pressure of 0 in the baseline, but this is likely a data entry error.

  • ANOVA: Observing the results of the Anova test, we fail to find any effect of treatment and time on systolic blood pressure. We cannot conclude that the means vary between group.

Diastolic Blood Pressure

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.3600650
Anova P-Value 0.7005101

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Diastolic Blood Pressure between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.9091 6.0408 11 0.3192
Dual W6 - W12 -0.3636 6.6072 11 0.8588
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -1.1429 6.0365 15 0.8215
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -2.3571 6.1844 15 0.9031
Control B2 - W6 -1.4286 7.1381 10 0.9240
Control W6 - W12 -2.3000 10.9143 10 0.7967

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: There appears to be a slight downward trend in mean diastolic blood pressures within all groups, though this trend is driven by a few select individuals within groups. Observing the details of individual subjects, we see that within groups subjects diastolic blood pressure goes both up and down over time.

  • ANOVA: The Anova test as a whole is non-significant, meaning that we did not find any evidence to suggest that the groups had different mean diastolic blood pressures at any point in time throughout the test.

Resting Heart Rate

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.0684009
Anova P-Value 0.9340265

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Resting Heart Rate between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -2.4545 11.1388 11 0.4816
Dual W6 - W12 2.0909 15.7000 11 0.6681
Excersise Only B2 - W6 1.6786 8.5791 15 0.7895
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -1.6786 11.5984 15 0.3534
Control B2 - W6 -1.1429 6.7929 10 0.8726
Control W6 - W12 -0.2000 9.8297 10 0.8865

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, there appears to be little real change in resting heart rate over time throughout any of the groups. Individual subjects withing groups vary wildly, with resting heart rates increasing, decreasing, and remaining constant.

  • ANOVA: Observing the Anova test results, we find that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis. In other words, we can not conclude that groups had any differences in mean resting heart rate at any point in time.

Chair Stand Lower Body Strength

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.2102797
Anova P-Value 0.8115039

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Chair Stand Lower Body Strength between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 0.9091 5.5759 11 0.6005
Dual W6 - W12 0.1818 3.5445 11 0.8683
Excersise Only B2 - W6 2.5000 2.6818 15 0.4345
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.3571 2.3405 15 0.6546
Control B2 - W6 0.5714 1.9024 10 1.0000
Control W6 - W12 0.2000 1.1353 10 0.6513

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the chair stand lower body strength scores, they appear to be relatively constant across time within groups. The exercise only group had lower mean average chair strength at baseline, but the group mean soon converged to the other scores at week 6 and week 12.

  • ANOVA: Observing the Anova test, our F-statitics is too low and p-value too high. This means that there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, and we cannot conclude that chair stand lower body strength scores differ significantly between groups across time.

Timed Up and Go Test (Only Walking)

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 1.0928664
Anova P-Value 0.3478239

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Timed Up and Go Test (only walking) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.7464 1.4512 11 0.0026
Dual W6 - W12 0.2255 0.8559 11 0.4028
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -2.0621 1.3790 15 0.0226
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.5279 1.4337 15 0.8388
Control B2 - W6 -0.6929 0.7981 10 0.0437
Control W6 - W12 0.0530 0.9148 10 0.5642

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graphs it appears that timed up and go test scores (only walking) trend down over time from baseline to week 12. The effect is most pronounced in both the dual and exercise only groups. There is a “V” effect on the data, where the scores are lowest at week 6 across both dual and exeercise only groups, increasing slightly from week 6 to week 12.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Timed Up and Go Test (Counting Backward)

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.5810103
Anova P-Value 0.5653074

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Timed Up and Go Test (counting backward) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.6336 1.6719 11 0.0089
Dual W6 - W12 0.0345 0.6586 11 0.8654
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -2.1857 1.3091 15 0.0792
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.2807 1.2167 15 0.8127
Control B2 - W6 -0.7243 0.6223 10 0.0124
Control W6 - W12 -0.0160 0.5808 10 0.8229

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Upon graphical observation, it appears that time up and go test scores (counting backward) trend downward over time throughout all groups, with the effects most pronounced in the dual and exercise only groups. Interestingly enough, the data appears to follow a “V” shape, with many subjects having their lowest score in week 6, and then having higher scores in week 12.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Timed Up and Go Test (Holding Water)

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.6981957
Anova P-Value 0.5051361

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Timed Up and Go Test (holding water) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.3382 1.9737 11 0.0483
Dual W6 - W12 0.2882 1.2248 11 0.4533
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -1.6121 1.4104 15 0.0615
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.4121 1.1238 15 0.9652
Control B2 - W6 -0.0786 2.2871 10 0.8013
Control W6 - W12 -0.4060 1.6056 10 0.8711

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graphs, it appears that timed up and go test (holding water) scores trend downward over time in dual task and exercise only, while remaining somewhat constant in the control group. It is worth noting, in both dual and exercise only groups, the mean scores follow a “V” shape, with lowest mean scores at week 6, not week 12.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Timed Up and Go Test (Average of 3 Conditions)

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.8023277
Anova P-Value 0.4573748

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Timed Up and Go Test (Average of 3 conditions) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.5727 1.5715 11 0.0078
Dual W6 - W12 0.1827 0.7790 11 0.4546
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -1.9533 1.1555 15 0.0475
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.4069 1.0493 15 0.8638
Control B2 - W6 -0.4986 0.8592 10 0.1652
Control W6 - W12 -0.1230 0.8924 10 0.7460

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graph, it appears that timed up and go test scores (average of 3 conditions) trend down in the dual task group over time. In the exercise only group, from baseline to week 6 appears to trend down, while from week 6 to week 12 scores trend up. There is no discernible trend in the control group, with subjects showing constant, improved, and worsened scores.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

4 Square Balance

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 2.9083632
Anova P-Value 0.0695675

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in 4 Square Balance between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.7600 1.4361 11 0.0023
Dual W6 - W12 0.5873 1.3264 11 0.1727
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -2.0343 1.6228 15 0.0062
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.4779 1.6189 15 0.3483
Control B2 - W6 0.6486 0.9449 10 0.5812
Control W6 - W12 0.2060 1.0187 10 0.7911

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graph, there appears to be a weak downward trend from baseline to week 12 in the Dual task group. There is a noticeable “V” shape here, implying that 4 square balance scores went up in the last period. This V-shape is present in Exercise only, but the trend is fat less noticeable. Finally, in the control group no trend is easily discernible.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Cognitive Avg Score

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.2464917
Anova P-Value 0.7830550

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Cognitive Avg score (75+ normal) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 1.0000 5.6921 11 0.5730
Dual W6 - W12 0.1818 5.9635 11 0.9215
Excersise Only B2 - W6 3.0714 5.1659 15 0.6191
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -0.1429 4.4003 15 0.4602
Control B2 - W6 3.0000 4.4401 10 0.7003
Control W6 - W12 1.3000 4.4234 10 0.8793

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, though group mean cognitive average scores appear to trend slightly up across all groups, individuals within those groups appear to have cognitive average scores that remain constant, increase, and decrease.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Visuo-Spatial

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.1780046
Anova P-Value 0.8377880

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Visuo-spatial (normal range = 75-95) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 1.5455 12.0363 11 0.6792
Dual W6 - W12 2.1818 9.2176 11 0.4506
Excersise Only B2 - W6 4.7857 6.6815 15 0.3378
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -0.7857 4.7423 15 0.7202
Control B2 - W6 3.3750 11.1347 10 0.9095
Control W6 - W12 3.5000 12.3671 10 0.8501

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, it appears mean visuo-spatial scores increase over time in both dual and control, while remaining relatively constant in exercise only. However, subjects within these groups do not appear to follow this mean trend, meaning that these mean increases likely represent noise within the data.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Executive Function/Attention

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.4327180
Anova P-Value 0.6526019

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Exec function/attention (normal range=79-95) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 0.5455 8.3230 11 0.8323
Dual W6 - W12 1.6364 6.0212 11 0.3886
Excersise Only B2 - W6 2.4286 5.4450 15 0.8579
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -0.7143 5.3122 15 0.2192
Control B2 - W6 3.1250 7.9899 10 0.9426
Control W6 - W12 0.8000 7.8145 10 1.0000

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, executive function appears to remain relatively constant across all groups over time. There appears to be no trend in subjects withing the groups.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Naming/Languages

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.4803783
Anova P-Value 0.6230773

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Naming/Languages (normal range=81-97) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 1.3636 10.8469 11 0.6855
Dual W6 - W12 3.0000 7.9120 11 0.2371
Excersise Only B2 - W6 4.1429 8.4203 15 0.4731
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -0.5714 6.6183 15 0.5352
Control B2 - W6 4.0000 9.4264 10 0.9045
Control W6 - W12 1.0000 9.3571 10 0.9330

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: There does appear to be a slight upward trend in Naming/Language scores over time in both dual and control groups, but this trend is not reflected within the individual group’s subjects. The exercise only group appears to follow no real trend.

  • ANOVA: With a low f-stat and high p-value (>.05), we can conclude that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any groups scores significantly differ from the mean over time. With a p-value close to the cutoff, even the case where we raise the confidence interval to .10 remains inconclusive, since none of the pairwise t-tests are close to significant.

Memory

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.1671724
Anova P-Value 0.8468114

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Memory (normal range=83-99) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -1.5455 6.2187 11 0.4290
Dual W6 - W12 -1.2727 9.2530 11 0.6580
Excersise Only B2 - W6 1.5000 6.9697 15 0.8387
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.2143 4.2820 15 0.4526
Control B2 - W6 0.6250 5.7306 10 0.9258
Control W6 - W12 1.2000 3.9101 10 0.5382

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Memory scores appear to remain constant at all times throughout all groups. There appears to be two outlier subjects. One in the dual task group we showed a horrific drop in memory scores, and one in the control group which showed outstanding improvement.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Delayed Recall

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.2005540
Anova P-Value 0.8193306

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Delayed Recall (normal range 81-99) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 3.1818 11.3209 11 0.3732
Dual W6 - W12 0.8182 9.5480 11 0.7820
Excersise Only B2 - W6 7.5000 6.9143 15 0.1962
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -1.5000 7.2084 15 0.5316
Control B2 - W6 7.2500 11.8412 10 0.1955
Control W6 - W12 1.0000 9.2616 10 0.6065

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Mean delayed recall appears to increase in all groups across time, though the trend in exercise only follows an inverted “V” shape, with highest scores in week 6 and not week 12. This “V” shape appears to be present in both normal and inverted forms in most subjects across all groups over time.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Abstraction

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.2194427
Anova P-Value 0.8042028

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Abstraction (normal range 74-97) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 4.2727 9.9004 11 0.1828
Dual W6 - W12 1.2727 9.1004 11 0.6527
Excersise Only B2 - W6 5.2857 12.5602 15 0.2196
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.1429 8.9859 15 0.9082
Control B2 - W6 5.6250 10.2112 10 0.7364
Control W6 - W12 0.6000 8.4748 10 0.8567

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, mean abstraction scores appear to increase over time across all groups. Within individual groups, this trend does not appear to apply to subjects, with roughly equivalent levels of subjects showing increased, decreased, and constant abstraction scores over time.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Physical Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.3970197
Anova P-Value 0.6756904

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SmartFitBoard Physical only between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 3.7273 7.2262 11 0.1179
Dual W6 - W12 2.2727 7.3361 11 0.3284
Excersise Only B2 - W6 4.2143 7.7179 15 0.0731
Excersise Only W6 - W12 6.3571 6.4879 15 0.3214
Control B2 - W6 1.5000 4.6547 10 0.2338
Control W6 - W12 2.7000 3.3350 10 0.0583

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: There appears to be a slight upward trend in level 2 smart fit voard scores over time across all groups. This trend does appear to be reflected by the individual subjects within specific treatments.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Cognitive Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.4011575
Anova P-Value 0.6729703

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SFB Cognitive only between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 10.0000 5.9161 11 0.0002
Dual W6 - W12 16.3636 12.0605 11 0.0011
Excersise Only B2 - W6 20.7143 19.5976 15 0.3032
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -1.0714 13.8922 15 0.3523
Control B2 - W6 15.0000 4.0825 10 0.8675
Control W6 - W12 2.5000 14.3856 10 0.5414

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: In cognitive only scores (smart fit board level 2) there appears to be a very noticeable upward trend across all groups. The exercise only group is interesting because many subjects appear to follow an inverted “V” shaped trend. The subjects in this group peaked in week 6, making this the only group who’s week 12 score is not higher than their week 6 scores.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Dual Task Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.1083395
Anova P-Value 0.8976612

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SFB Dual Task between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 5.4545 19.2944 11 0.3705
Dual W6 - W12 14.0909 16.2509 11 0.0165
Excersise Only B2 - W6 6.4286 14.6009 15 0.2698
Excersise Only W6 - W12 5.7143 9.3761 15 0.0321
Control B2 - W6 5.0000 5.7735 10 0.8361
Control W6 - W12 10.5000 10.3950 10 0.2977

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, there appears to be a noticeable trend in across all groups over time. All groups appear to show consistent improvement in mean dual task scores (SFB level 2) over time.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Accuracy-Cognitive Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 1.3921921
Anova P-Value 0.2636381

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SFB Accuracy-Cogn only between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 1.1818 5.7065 11 0.5078
Dual W6 - W12 2.8182 10.1372 11 0.3782
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -0.7857 7.4129 15 0.2863
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -2.0000 6.6564 15 0.5768
Control B2 - W6 2.0000 4.3970 10 0.5114
Control W6 - W12 1.1000 5.2377 10 1.0000

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graphs, there appears to be no real trend in accuracy cognitive scores over time. The dual task group has one outlier that started very low, but increased to near mean levels.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Accuracy-Dual Task Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.4485241
Anova P-Value 0.6426486

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SFB Accuracy-Dual task between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 3.0000 8.5440 11 0.2712
Dual W6 - W12 4.1818 9.9782 11 0.1947
Excersise Only B2 - W6 0.4286 11.6930 15 0.9124
Excersise Only W6 - W12 0.3571 9.5483 15 0.4345
Control B2 - W6 3.0000 3.5590 10 0.2967
Control W6 - W12 -0.2000 6.4601 10 0.0623

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Observing the graphs, there appears to be no real trend in accuracy dual task scores over time. The dual task group has one outlier that started very low, but increased to near mean levels.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Response Time-Cognitive Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.0056836
Anova P-Value 0.9943335

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SFB Response time-Cognitive Only between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -0.3982 0.2975 11 0.0013
Dual W6 - W12 -1.3527 0.3323 11 0.0000
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -0.7729 0.7875 15 0.1018
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -1.0364 0.4940 15 0.0000
Control B2 - W6 -0.2475 0.0922 10 0.9263
Control W6 - W12 -0.9510 0.6621 10 0.0006

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: In the graph of cognititve only response time scores, it is clear that the mean scores decreases over time for all treatments. The decrease is most pronounced in the dual task and exercise only groups, and is consistently found across subject. It is worth noting, that for nearly every subject in every group, SFB level 2 response time cognitive only scores decreased.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored. While a trend appears to be present from the graph, the ANOVA shows no evidence of a within subjects trend.

Response Time-Dual Task

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.4024880
Anova P-Value 0.6720981

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in SFB Response Time-Dual Task between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -0.2027 0.6136 11 0.2989
Dual W6 - W12 -1.4600 0.4141 11 0.0000
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -0.2414 0.6440 15 0.2532
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -1.4064 0.4207 15 0.0000
Control B2 - W6 -0.2325 0.1406 10 0.3140
Control W6 - W12 -1.2870 0.5657 10 0.0003

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, SFB level 2 response time dual task mean scores appear to decrease over time across all groups. This trend is reflective of the trends of individual subjects within these groups.

  • ANOVA: With a low f-statistic and high p-value, the ANOVA test is insignificant. There is not enough evidence to conclude that response time is different between groups.

Physical Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.8748614
Anova P-Value 0.4266545

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 Smart Fit Board Physical only between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual -3.4545 22.3220 11 0.6189
Excersise Only 4.2857 15.7989 15 0.6189
Control -8.1000 26.2951 10 0.1799

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, there is little to no trend in the mean values of level 3 SFB physical scores across time. This is reflective of the subjects within these groups, as their scores vary between constant, improved, and worsened.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Cognitive Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.2554165
Anova P-Value 0.7761579

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 SFB Cognitive only between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual 11.8182 19.2708 11 0.0693
Excersise Only 2.5000 14.7739 15 0.0693
Control 6.0000 8.7560 10 0.6959

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, there appears to be a slight upward trend in the means of the dual task group. However, this is not reflective of the subjects within the group, as their level 3 SFB cognitive only scores both increase and decrease over time dependent on subject. The exercise only and control groups appear to be relatively constant across time, with subjects in the groups improving, worsening, and remaining at constant values in roughly equal amounts.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Dual Task Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.3953652
Anova P-Value 0.6766782

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 SFB Dual Task between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual 13.6364 11.8514 11 0.0034
Excersise Only 2.8571 16.1381 15 0.0034
Control 9.0000 12.6491 10 0.7025

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, there appears to be a slight upward trend in dual task, with the mean level 3 SFB dual task scores increasing over time. The subjects within this group tend to either improve or remain constant. In the exercise only group, there appears to be no trend, however the control group also appears to trend upward similar to the dual task group.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Accuracy-Cognitive Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.1946223
Anova P-Value 0.8241126

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 SFB Accuracy-Cogn only between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual 0.1818 23.2586 11 0.9798
Excersise Only 3.5000 12.8407 15 0.9798
Control 3.0000 10.9646 10 0.3587

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, all groups appear to have a relatively constant mean SFB level 3 accuracy cognition score across time. Subjects appear to worsen, improve, and remain constant in equal amounts across all groups.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Accuracy-Dual Task Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 1.3136915
Anova P-Value 0.2829339

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 SFB Accuracy-Dual task between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual -2.0909 9.4916 11 0.4818
Excersise Only 4.2143 7.8464 15 0.4818
Control 10.1000 15.8986 10 0.2414

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, dual and exercise only appear to have relatively constant SFB level 3 accuracy dual task scores over time, with subjects either increasing, decreasing, or maintaining constant scores. The control group appears to have increasing mean scores over time, though this is likely due to the significant amount of individuals who started at low scores and converged to the mean score level of the other groups.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Response Time-Cognitive Only

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 1.1901206
Anova P-Value 0.3172904

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 SFB Response time-Cognitive Only between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual -0.9464 1.1364 11 0.0201
Excersise Only -1.0571 0.6301 15 0.0201
Control 0.0720 0.7079 10 0.0001

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, mean response time cognitive only SFB level 3 scores appear to decrease in dual task and exercise only groups, and this is reflected by the subjects within these groups. The mean scores for the control group appear to remain relatively constant, but a majority of the subjects within this group appear to experiences decreases in score.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Response Time-Dual Task

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 0.9248801
Anova P-Value 0.4069210

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Level 3 SFB Response Time-Dual Task between Weeks 6 and 12
Group Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual -1.2509 1.0407 11 0.0026
Excersise Only -0.9071 0.8640 15 0.0026
Control -0.0510 0.2777 10 0.0004

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, it appears that mean level 3 SFB response time-dual task scores decrease over time in the dual and exercise only task groups, while remaining constant in the control group. These mean trends are reflective of the subject trends within each group.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Avg Visual Motor Rxn Time

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 2.9269927
Anova P-Value 0.0684853

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Avg Visual Motor Rxn Time (normal range=420-1000 between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -0.6364 95.8439 11 0.9829
Dual W6 - W12 37.4545 121.9076 11 0.3322
Excersise Only B2 - W6 8.9286 184.5058 15 0.0254
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -9.4286 226.2336 15 0.4178
Control B2 - W6 -16.2500 146.0761 10 0.8838
Control W6 - W12 -4.0000 86.7397 10 0.1802

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, mean visual motor reaction time scores appear to remain constant across time in all groups. This is reflective of the within subjects trends, as subjects either remain constant, increase, or decrease in score. From a graphical examination there does not appear to be any discernible trend in any group.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Visual Salience rxn time

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 1.216020
Anova P-Value 0.310157

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Visual Salience rxn time (normal range=420-1800) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 -10.5455 160.6639 11 0.8320
Dual W6 - W12 51.4545 220.4701 11 0.4568
Excersise Only B2 - W6 31.1429 383.9906 15 0.3813
Excersise Only W6 - W12 45.4286 443.3638 15 0.5650
Control B2 - W6 -47.8750 316.1932 10 0.5488
Control W6 - W12 21.3000 165.3764 10 0.4412

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, mean visual salience reaction time scores appear to remain constant across time in all groups. This is reflective of the within subjects trends, as subjects either remain constant, increase, or decrease in score. From a graphical examination there does not appear to be any discernible trend in any group.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

Adaptive Motor Control Rxn Time

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 4.6625550
Anova P-Value 0.0169701

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Adaptive Motor Control Rxn Time (normal range=420-800) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 0.0909 59.4768 11 0.9961
Dual W6 - W12 23.9091 95.7366 11 0.4268
Excersise Only B2 - W6 -13.0714 152.7146 15 0.2157
Excersise Only W6 - W12 -64.2857 121.7655 15 0.4174
Control B2 - W6 15.1250 51.1034 10 0.0773
Control W6 - W12 -29.4000 90.4166 10 0.0670

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, mean adaptive motor control reaction time scores appear to remain constant across time in all groups. This is reflective of the within subjects trends, as subjects either remain constant, increase, or decrease in score. From a graphical examination there does not appear to be any discernible trend in any group.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a high F-stat and a low p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole has found that there exists a significant difference between adaptive motor control reaction time between treatment groups. Observing the t-tests, we find that no single test is significant. This means we can’t state where the difference found by ANOVA is. This is likely due to differences in the power of the test. The t-tests do not have many subjects in each of them, so they have a lower power of the test than the ANOVA, which can utilize all of the subjects. A higher amount of subjects per group may allow us to make definitive conclusions in the future.

Avg Executive Function/Avg Speed Processing time

Column {width = 500}

Graph

Anova Test

Anova F-Stat 1.9031502
Anova P-Value 0.1661152

Column {width = 500}

Table

Difference in Avg Executive Function/Avg Speed Processing time (normal range = 1600-2100) between Baseline 2 vs. Weeks 6 and Weeks 6 vs. 12
Group Week Mean Standard Deviation N p-value
Dual B2 - W6 27.9091 126.7687 11 0.4820
Dual W6 - W12 -34.0909 100.8320 11 0.2883
Excersise Only B2 - W6 94.8078 449.6469 15 0.4225
Excersise Only W6 - W12 34.9286 99.8803 15 0.7570
Control B2 - W6 7.0000 88.0032 10 0.0225
Control W6 - W12 -35.5000 61.0924 10 0.0515

Interpretation of Results

  • Graph: Graphically, mean average executive function/average processing time scores appear to remain constant across time in all groups. This is reflective of the within subjects trends, as subjects either remain constant, increase, or decrease in score. There is 1 outlier in the exercise only group with a reaction time of 0, which either indicates a failed test or is an input error. From a graphical examination there does not appear to be any discernible trend in any group.

  • ANOVA: The ANOVA results in a low F-stat and a high p-value, which indicates that the ANOVA as a whole is insignificant. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a difference in means occurs across time and group, and the results of the pairwise tests can be ignored.

All Results

Variable Anova F-Stat Anova P-Value
Percent fat 0.2105 0.8113
Systolic Blood Pressure 0.6350 0.5367
Diastolic Blood Pressure 0.3601 0.7005
Resting Heart Rate 0.0684 0.9340
Chair Stand Lower Body Strength 0.2103 0.8115
Timed Up and Go Test (only walking) 1.0929 0.3478
Timed Up and Go Test (counting backward) 0.5810 0.5653
Timed Up and Go Test (holding water) 0.6982 0.5051
Timed Up and Go Test (Average of 3 conditions) 0.8023 0.4574
4 Square Balance 2.9084 0.0696
Cognitive Avg score (75+ normal) 0.2465 0.7831
Visuo-spatial (normal range = 75-95) 0.1780 0.8378
Exec function/attention (normal range=79-95) 0.4327 0.6526
Naming/Languages (normal range=81-97) 0.4804 0.6231
Memory (normal range=83-99) 0.1672 0.8468
Delayed Recall (normal range 81-99) 0.2006 0.8193
Abstraction (normal range 74-97) 0.2194 0.8042
Avg Visual Motor Rxn Time (normal range=420-1000 2.9270 0.0685
Visual Salience rxn time (normal range=420-1800) 1.2160 0.3102
Adaptive Motor Control Rxn Time (normal range=420-800) 4.6626 0.0170
Avg Executive Function/Avg Speed Processing time (normal range = 1600-2100) 1.9032 0.1661
SmartFitBoard Physical only 0.3970 0.6757
SFB Cognitive only 0.4012 0.6730
SFB Dual Task 0.1083 0.8977
SFB Accuracy-Cogn only 1.3922 0.2636
SFB Accuracy-Dual task 0.4485 0.6426
SFB Response time-Cognitive Only 0.0057 0.9943
SFB Response Time-Dual Task 0.4025 0.6721
Level 3 Smart Fit Board Physical only 0.8749 0.4267
Level 3 SFB Cognitive only 0.2554 0.7762
Level 3 SFB Dual Task 0.3954 0.6767
Level 3 SFB Accuracy-Cogn only 0.1946 0.8241
Level 3 SFB Accuracy-Dual task 1.3137 0.2829
Level 3 SFB Response time-Cognitive Only 1.1901 0.3173
Level 3 SFB Response Time-Dual Task 0.9249 0.4069

Findings

Findings and Limitations

General Findings

Overall

After analyzing each variable, we found that every response variable was not significantly affected by the difference in group, when accounting for time and subject, except for the SFB Response Time-Dual Task (Level 2).

Adaptive Motor Control Rxn Time (normal range=420-800)

The ANOVA for this test is significant. Moving on to the pairwise t-tests, we see that there is no significant difference. This means our results on the test are inconclusive. This difference is likely due to the reduced power of the test in the t-tests. The ANOVA can use all of the subjects in the study, while the t-tests are constrained by the amount of subjects within the group. Having more subjects per group may allow us to make a definitive conclusion in this regard.

Limitations

Overview

Overall, the limited results of this study may not be due to a lack of difference between the DUal Task group and the standard Exercise Only group, but rather limitations put in place by the data itself. Several key limiting factors prevented the generation of conclusive results in this study.

Small Sample Size

The number of participants in each study group is considered too small for the test. We have a maximum of 13 participants for a group at a certain time. And the tests including the ANOVA and the t-test with 3 groups and multiple time points would require a considerably bigger sample size to have a reasonable error of estimation, therefore, the results of the tests can be trustworthy. For further improvement for the difficulties in the future, we should increase the number of participants in each group to 50 participants for the minimum to generate reliable results out of the tests.

Missing Values

There are a fair amount of missing values that limit how effectively we can utilize the data. Two major limitations are: Missing data points for participants at certain checkpoints No baseline for level 3 Smart Fit Board measures

Sampling Bias

The subjects consisted of a group that volunteered for an exercise study. The types of individuals that are going to volunteer for this study are likely individuals that are already active and high functioning. Additionally, some of the individuals in the control group participated in this study purely based on the fact that they wouldn’t have to do anything besides the testing at given time points, meaning that the groups were not randomly assigned and results cannot be applied to the population.

Number of time points

When looking at the graphs of the data, the small number of time points is a large limitation in identifying trends. This study only has data collected for two timepoints and a baseline, which means it is difficult to identify trends. In a future study with data collected at additional points in time, noticeable trends could be further researched.

Future Avenues of Research

Although there are some limitations in the data, there may be some additional avenues of research to pursue. Currently, the ANOVA used in this study is based on a widely used method of analysis for ANOVA. An issue is, this popular method has several limitations when missing data points are present. This study contains a large amount of missing data in relation to the small number of data points. Using alternatives to our original method may yield more accurate results.

In addition, there is accelerometry data provided that has not yet been analyzed. The differences in this data can be measured across groups to generate additional comparisons. There is a caveat that this data contains far more missing points with fewer subjects than the data used so far. This may limit the efficacy of research in this category.